CHAPTER XII.

_SIR JOHN LUBBOCK ON TRADITION._

DE MAISTRE'S VIEW.[234]

"We have little knowledge of the times which preceded the

Deluge.... A single consideration interests us, and it must

never be lost sight of, and that is, that chastisements are ever

proportioned to crimes, and crimes always proportioned to the

knowledge of the criminal; in such sort that the Deluge supposes

unheard-of crimes, and that these crimes suppose a knowledge

infinitely transcending that which we possess.... This knowledge,

freed from the evil which had rendered it so noxious, survived in

the first family the destruction of the human race. We are blinded

as to the nature and advance of science by a gross sophism which

has fascinated every eye; it is to judge of times when men saw

effects in their causes by those in which men painfully ascend from

effects to causes, in which they are only concerned with effects,

in which they say it is useless to occupy themselves with causes,

and in which they do not know what constitutes a cause. They never

cease repeating--'Think of the time that has been required to know

such and such a thing.' What inconceivable blindness! A moment only

was required. If man would know the cause of a single phenomenon of

nature, he would probably comprehend all the rest. We are unwilling

to see that truths, the most difficult to discover, are very easy

to understand.... 'These things,' as Plato says, 'are perfectly

and easily learned if any one teaches them, [Greek: ei didaskoi

tis]; but,' he adds, 'no one will teach them us, unless, indeed,

God shows him the road, [Greek: all oud an didaxeien ei mê Theos

yphêgoito].' 'I doubt not,' said Hippocrates, 'that the arts were

in the first instance favours ([Greek: theôn charitas]) granted to

men by the gods.'... Listen to sage antiquity in its account of the

first men: it will tell you that they were marvellous men, and that

beings of a superior order deigned to favour them with the most

precious communications. On this point there is no disagreement,

... reason, revelation, all human tradition make up a demonstration

which the mouth only can contradict. Not only, then, did mankind

commence with science, but with a science different from ours, and

superior to ours.... No one knows to what epoch remounts, I do not

say the early commencements of society, but the great institutions,

the profound knowledge, and the most magnificent monuments of

human industry and human power.... Asia, having been the theatre

of the greatest marvels, it is not astonishing that its people

should have preserved a leaning to the marvellous stronger than

what is natural to man in general, and than each one recognises in

himself individually. Hence it comes that they have always shown

so little taste and talent for our science of _conclusions_. One

would say rather that they recalled something of primitive science

and of the era of intuition. Would the enchained eagle ask for a

balloon to raise himself into the air? No, he would demand only

that his fetters should be broken. And who knows if these people

are not destined yet to contemplate sights which will be refused

to the cavilling genius of Europe? However this may be, observe,

I pray you, that it is impossible to think of modern art without

seeing it constantly environed with all the contrivances of the

intellect and all the methods of art.... On the contrary. So far as

it is possible to discover the science of primitive times at such

an enormous distance, we see it always free and isolated, flying

rather than marching, and presenting in all its characteristics

something of the ærial and supernatural.[235]... But then comes

the corollary.... If all men descend from the three couples who

repeopled the universe, and if the human race commenced with

knowledge, the savage cannot be more, as I have said to you, than

a branch detached from the social tree.... Now, what matter does

it make at what epoch such and such a branch was separated from

the tree? It suffices that it is detached: no doubt as to its

degradation; and I venture to say no doubt as to the cause of

degradation, which can only have been some crime. A chief of a

nation having altered the principle of morality in his household

by one of those prevarications which, so far as we can judge, are

no longer possible in the actual state of things, because happily

our knowledge is no longer such as to allow us to become culpable

in this degree; this chief of a nation, I say, transmits the curse

to his posterity; and every constant force being accelerating

in its nature, this degradation, weighing incessantly upon his

descendants, has ended in making them what we call _savages_. Two

causes extremely different have thrown a deceptive cloud over the

lamentable state of savages: the one of ancient date, the other

belonging to our century.... One cannot for an instant regard

the savage without reading the curse written, I do not say only

in his soul, but even in the exterior form of his body. He is an

infant, robust, yet deformed and ferocious, in whom the flame of

intelligence no longer throws more than a lurid and intermittent

glare.... I cannot abandon this subject without suggesting an

important observation: The barbarian who is intermediate between

the civilised man and the savage, has been and may be again

civilised by some sort of religion; but the savage, properly so

called, has never been so except by Christianity. It is a prodigy

of the first order, a species of redemption, exclusively reserved

to the true priesthood.[236]... For the rest, we must not confound

the _savage_ with the _barbarian_.

[234] I need not remind my reader that these speculations of De

Maistre anticipated by many years the analogous, though at the

same time independent, conclusions of Archbishop Whately, in

his lecture "On the Origin of Civilisation," published in 1854.

[235] "We ought then to recognise that the state of civilisation and

of science is, in a certain sense, the natural and primitive

state of man. Thus, all oriental traditions commenced with

a state of perfection and light, and, I repeat it, of

supernatural light; and Greece--lying Greece, which 'has dared

everything in history'--renders homage to this truth, in

placing its Golden Age at the beginning of things. It is no

less remarkable that it does not attribute to the following

ages, even to the iron age, the state of savagery, so that all

that it has told us of those primitive men living on acorns,

&c., puts it _in contradiction with itself_, and can only have

reference to particular cases, _i.e._ to some races degraded,

and then reclaimed to a state of nature, which is a state of

civilisation."--_De Maistre's "Soirées de St Petersbourg"_ i.

_Deux: Entretien_, p. 98.

[236] I consider that this remark has been fully substantiated in

Marshall's "Christian Missions."

"No language could possibly have been invented, either by a single

man, who could not have extorted obedience, or by many who would

not have made themselves understood to each other.... But I would

wish, before concluding this subject, to recommend to your notice

an observation which has always struck me. Whence comes it that in

the primitive language of every ancient people, we find words which

necessarily suppose a knowledge foreign to these people? Whence,

for instance, have the Greeks, three thousand years ago at least,

found the epithet 'physizoos' (giving or possessing life), which

Homer sometimes gives to the earth?.... Where have they taken the

still more singular epithet of 'philomate' (liking or thirsting for

blood), given to this same earth in a tragedy? (Euripides, Phoen.

v. 179). Æschylus had alluded before 'to the earth drinking the

blood of the two rival brothers, the one slain by the other.'[237]

Humboldt ('Monum. des Peuples Indigènes de l'Amerique,' Paris,

1816) has said: 'Many idioms which at present belong only to

barbarous nations seem to be the remains of rich and flexible

languages, which indicate a high culture.... But tell me, I pray

you, how it entered the heads of the ancient Latins, at a time when

they were only acquainted with the arts of war and of tillage, to

express by the same word the idea of prayer and of punishment? Who

taught them to call fever the "purifier," or the "expiator"?'[238]

Would not one say that there was here a judgment, a veritable

knowledge of the cause, by virtue of which the people affirmed the

name so justly? But do you believe that these sorts of judgments

could possibly have belonged to a time when they scarcely knew

how to write, when the Dictator dug his garden, and in which they

composed verses which Varro and Cicero no longer understood?... The

Greeks had preserved some obscure traditions in this regard--[Mr

Gladstone has shown them to be neither few nor obscure],--and who

knows if Homer does not attest the same truth, perhaps without

knowing it, when he speaks of certain men and certain things 'which

the gods called after one manner, and men after another?'"--_Count

Joseph de Maistre, "Soirées de St Petersbourg,"_ i. _Deux:

Entretien._[239]

[237] Compare with Gainet, i. 92, 93.

[238] "Now it is clear that the train of thought which leads from

purification to penance, or from purification to punishment,

reveals a moral and even a religious sentiment in the

conception and naming of poena, and it shows us that in

the very infancy of criminal justice punishment was looked

upon (Mr Max Müller is speaking with reference to what I may

call briefly the Sanscrit epoch) not simply a retribution or

revenge, but as a correction, as a removal of guilt. We do not

feel the presence of these early thoughts when we speak of

corporal punishment or castigation; yet _castigation_ too was

originally chastening, from '_castus_,' pure; and 'incestum'

was impurity or sin, which, according to Roman law, the

priests had to make good, or to punish by a 'supplicium,' or

supplication or prostration before the gods."

[239] Compare with Max Müller, "Chips," ii. 256.

Against this view of De Maistre, which I consider to be indirectly

sustained by the testimony of all antiquity, stands the theory of

Sir John Lubbock. There is the constant historical tradition and

testimony of the human race on one side, and there is the history of

"Pre-historic Times" on the other. Nevertheless, I venture to say, that

the author of "Pre-historic Times" only takes up with man at the point

where De Maistre leaves him.

Of course I do not seek to detach Sir John Lubbock from the evidence he

has collected; neither do I forget that he is the representative of an

opinion and a school; at any rate, that there is an opinion of which he

is the most conspicuous exponent.

So far as my limited acquaintance with the special subjects with which

Sir John Lubbock deals extends (and with these I am only indirectly

concerned), he appears perfectly straightforward and candid; and,

moreover, I must acknowledge my obligations to him, for he has

written with remarkable breadth and ability; and it is with the aid

of the interesting matter which he has accumulated,[240] expressly in

disparagement of tradition, that I venture to undertake to reinstate it

in honour.

[240] _Vide_ chapter on Savage Life in "Pre-historic Times."

Neither do I wish to ignore that Sir John Lubbock's main argument is

the geological argument derived from the discovery of the fossils and

implements in the drift. But on this point I beg to be allowed to say a

word in protest.

As a geologist Sir John Lubbock may be entitled to rely mainly upon the

geological evidence of a palæolithic age;[241] but as an ethnologist

dealing with history and writing on the subject of tradition, his

argument, however incontrovertible he may deem it, sinks to the second

rank; and secondary I shall take the liberty of considering it. On the

same grounds, though I think with more reason, that Sir J. Lubbock

seeks to be relieved from "the embarrassing interference of tradition"

("Pre-historic Times," p. 336), I protest, when tradition is the

subject-matter of the discussion, against a geological argument being

brought to take the ground from under our feet!

[241] It may perhaps be doubtful to what extent Sir J. Lubbock

maintains his theory of a Stone Age; although Sir John

formally excludes China and Japan from the argument, he

nevertheless appears to me to assume the existence of

universal transitional periods through which the human race

necessarily passed. "It would appear that pre-historic

archæology may be divided into four great epochs. Firstly,

that of the Drift: when man shared the possession of Europe

with the mammoth, &c. This we may call the 'palæolithic

period.' Secondly, the later or polished Stone Age; a period,

&c. Thirdly, the Bronze Age, &c. Fourthly, the Iron Age." Sir

John adds, certainly--"In order to prevent misapprehension,

it may be well to state at once, that for the present I only

apply this classification to Europe, though in all probability

it might be extended also to the neighbouring parts of Asia

and Africa. As regards other civilised countries, China

and Japan for instance, we as yet know nothing of their

pre-historic archæology. [I should rather say, as we as

yet have no reason to suppose that they have ever lost the

knowledge of metals.] It is evident also that some nations,

such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, &c., are _even now_ only

in an age of stone. But even in this limited sense, the

above classification has not met with general acceptance;

there _are still some_ archæologists who believe that the

arms and implements--stone, bronze, and iron--were used

contemporaneously."--_Pre-historic Times_, pp. 2, 3. I think

that the concluding sentence makes it quite clear that Sir

John assumes the existence of universal progressive periods

as above. In any case it may be proved in this way. Sir John

argues upon the hypothesis of the unity of the human race; and

I also think that he will not refuse the unbroken testimony

to the fact of the civilisation of Europe from Asia. Either,

then, the _first_ colonisation took place when Asia was in the

state of the "Drift," or in the "later polished Stone Age," or

else the migration left Asia with the knowledge of bronze or

iron. On the latter supposition the argument I contend for is

conceded, and original civilisation and subsequent degeneracy

is established. To escape this alternative the universality of

a Stone Age in Asia as well as in Europe, must be proved or

assumed. This assumption I maintain is essential to Sir John's

argument.

In the first place, I beg to urge that if Sir J. Lubbuck's argument be

well founded, Professor Rawlinson's reconstruction of Assyrian history

cannot be true. Now I assume that the one order of facts is as well

established as the other.

If Professor Rawlinson takes back Assyrian history and corroborates

history and tradition by the evidence of recent excavations to

B.C. 2234, identifies the Erech of Scripture with the Huruk

of the cuneiform tablets and the modern Urka; similarly identifies the

other three cities of Nimrod; and, finally, identifies Nimrod himself

as Bil-Nipru; and if, further, bronze implements are found (Rawlinson,

i. 101, 123, 211), along with flint doubtless (but this was common

throughout the bronze age, as Sir John himself admits), at an early

period;--and bronze, though comparatively rare, yet exists among the

very early Assyrian remains--there seems no good reason to suppose that

the knowledge of metals, which we know (Gen. iv. 22) to have existed

before the Deluge, and which the construction of the ark presupposes,

was ever lost.

A stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to

all mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the

testimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only

partially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional

knowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I

may at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor

Rawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of

history: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the

geological or palæontological argument override it? Is not history

supreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect

consistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should

have a right to expect? "Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum" (Eccles.

iii. 11).

[242] Wilson ("Archæologia of Scotland," 360) says, "But after all

it is to Asia we are forced to return for the _true source

of nearly all our primitive arts_, nor will the canons of

archæology be established on a safe foundation till the

antiquities of that older continent have been explored and

classified." Not only bronze but iron has been found in the

East in use at an early period (_vide_ Layard, "Nineveh and

Babylon," 178-9, 194). At Nimroud, Dr Percy (_id._ 670) says

the iron was used to economise the bronze; if so it must have

been cheaper, and therefore probably more abundant; and he

is of opinion that "iron was more extensively used by the

ancients than seems to be generally admitted." Philology seems

also to establish an early common knowledge, and subsequent

tradition of the use of metals. Mr Max Müller (ii. 45) says,

"That the value and usefulness of some of the metals was known

before the separation of the Aryan race can be proved only

by a few words; for the names of most of the metals differ

in different countries. Yet there can be no doubt that iron

was known, and its value appreciated, whether for defence

or attack. Whatever its old Aryan name may have been, it is

clear that Sanscrit 'ayas,' Latin 'ahes,' in 'ahencus' and

even the contracted form 'æs, æris'; the Gothic 'ais,' the

old German 'er,' and the English iron, are names cast in the

same mould, and only slightly corroded even now by the rust of

so many centuries." The Swedish Gothic race had no tradition

but of weapons of iron. (Professor Nillson's "Stone Age," p.

192.) I find in Captain Cook's Voyages that in Otaheite their

word for iron is "eure-eure." Germans (_apud_ Tacitus) called

their iron lances "framea," which has great resemblance to

_ferrum_. (_Vide_ Wilson, 195.) The following passage from

Wilson's "Archæologia" seems to prove this common terminology

still more extensively--"The Saxon 'gold' differs not more

essentially from the Greek '[Greek: chrysos]' than from the

Latin 'aurum'; iron from '[Greek: sideros]' or 'ferrum';

_but_ when we come to examine the Celtic names of the metals

it is otherwise. The Celtic terms are: Gold: Gael, 'or,'

golden, 'orail'; Welsh, 'aur'; Latin, ' aurum.' Silver: Gael,

'airgiod,' made of silver, 'airgiodach'; Welsh, 'ariant';

Latin, 'argentum'--derived in the Celtic from 'arg,' white, or

milk, like the Greek '[Greek: argos],' whence they also formed

their '[Greek: argyros].' Now, is it improbable that the Latin

'ferrum' and the English 'iron' spring indirectly from the

same Celtic root? Gael, '_iarunn_'; Welsh, '_haiarn_'; Saxon,

iron; Danish, 'iern'; Spanish, 'hierro,' which last furnishes

no remote approximation to 'ferrum.' Nor with the older metals

is it greatly different, as bronze, Gael, 'umha' or '_prais_';

Welsh, 'pres,' whence our English 'brass,' a name bearing no

very indistinct resemblance to the Roman 'æs.' Lead in like

manner has its peculiar Gaelic name 'luaidha,' like the Saxon

'læd' (lead), while the Welsh 'plwm' closely approximates to

the Latin 'plumbum.' It may undoubtedly be argued that the

Latin is the root instead of the offshoot of these Celtic

names, but the entire archæological proofs are opposed to this

idea," p. 350.

Sir J. Lubbock, "Pre-historic Times" (p. 372) says, "The tools

of the Tahitians when first discovered were made of stone,

bone, shell, or wood. Of metal they had no idea. When they

first obtained nails they mistook them for the young shoots of

some very hard wood, and hoping that life might not be quite

extinct, planted a number of them carefully in their gardens."

Captain Wallis, however, speaking of the islands within the

Polynesian group, remarks "as an extraordinary circumstance

that although no sort of metal was seen on any of the lately

discovered islands, yet the nations were no sooner possessed

of a piece of _iron_, than they began to _sharpen it_, but did

not treat copper or brass in the same manner."--"Voyages of

English Navigators round the World," iii. 108.

Would not these different appreciations of iron and brass be

accounted for if we suppose iron to be the _last_ metal they

had been traditionally acquainted with? iron being the more

common and inexpensive metal.

Now, secondly, as it happens that bronze is only a combination of

copper and tin in certain proportions, and as neither existed on the

spot (in the Mesopotamian valley), it is a curious question how they

could have hit upon the discovery through actual experiment. Tin,

for instance, is only found in Cornwall, Banca (between Sumatra and

Borneo), Spain, Saxony, and Siberia. Now, how did it enter the heads of

even these wise Chaldæans to go to these distant countries in search

of this metal unless they knew beforehand through tradition, that if

procured along with copper it would produce the useful amalgam they

sought? True, it might have been brought to them through commerce,

but in that case there must have been some other race more advanced

in civilisation than themselves. If the Phoenicians, much the same

argument will recur. If some race in the countries where tin was

procured, where is it now? If it exists it must be represented by

some race at present or historically known to have been in a state of

barbarism. This, however, at this stage of the argument, would be too

precipitate an admission of degeneracy!

Now, in a certain modified sense, I should be quite prepared to

admit a stone age. Nothing more probable than that in the dispersion

certain families would have taken only what came readiest to hand.

Those who made long marches, and came to countries where minerals

were scarce, would have been in the way of losing the knowledge of

metals altogether, except in so far as they preserved the tradition

of them; and this would much depend upon how far they preserved other

traditions.[243] Some instance should be given us--and as there are

savages who are still using nothing but flint, there is still the

chance--of some set of savages who have spontaneously hit upon the

plan of fusing different metals, or even of smelting metals which

were under their eye? Certainly not our supposed flint ancestors,

who, as Professor Nillson and Sir J. Lubbock agree, must have got

their knowledge of bronze from Asia: Sir J. Lubbock inclining to an

Indo-European, Professor Nillson to a Phoenician "origin of the

bronze age civilisation." ("Pre-historic Times," p. 49.) All this

perfectly coincides with the view I have indicated, that the contrast

arose through the divergence of the lines of the dispersion, leading

the tribes to varied fortunes, some losing and others retaining the

tradition; and those who retained it eventually communicating it to

those who had lapsed. But then there are those unfortunate Bashkirs,

who, Professor Nillson tells us, are still in their stone age, and who

have remained Bashkirs since Herodotus described them as such 2300

years ago. As they have resisted the contact of civilisation so long,

one can only watch with careful curiosity the transitionary process by

which they will pass by internal development from their stone to their

bronze age.[244]

[243] "Mr Vaux of the British Museum has added the following

interesting note on the metallurgy of the ancients. 1st, The

earliest form of metal work appears to have been employed

in the ornamentation of sacred vessels for temples, &c....

Occasionally the floor or foundation of some temples was of

brass: thus [Greek: chalkeos oudos] (Soph. OEd. Col.),

perhaps like the room at Delphi called [Greek: laïnos oudos],

itself also a treasury."--Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," p.

673.

Boulanger, "L'antiquité dévoilée par ses usage," (iii. 359),

says, "Ce sont les mystères qui out tiré les hommes de la vie

sauvage pour les ramener à la vie sociale et policée. Ces

mystères étoient un composé de cérémonies religieuses ...

_leur origine remonte_ au temps des héros et des demi-dieux."

[244] "Of all the different phases of civilisation, those which a

nation _must pass_ before it attains the highest grade of

development, the first rude state is the most enduring and the

most difficult to get over."--Professor Nillson's "Stone Age,"

191.

"The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze

age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of

a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the

_sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and

iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_

knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision,

and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human

sacrifice."--Wilson's "Archæologia," p. 29.

I must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion,

viz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition.

Sir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of

the stone and bronze age, "because the use of metals has in all cases

preceded that of writing." I should like to know whether Sir John is

prepared to adhere to this "dictum" under all circumstances, inasmuch

as, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria

even beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to

have found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) "in the ruins

of Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech" (the city of Nimrod) we find

inscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus,

who, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession

from Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), "accords

very curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions."

There is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were

the first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find

bricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their

previous use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's "dictum," finding

evidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that

the use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven

reigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod.

[245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to

discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through

direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it

merely by scientific induction.

Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's

"Stone Age" (which is a summary of the whole question), "I

have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of

historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious

to show_ that in archæology we can arrive at definite and

satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any

assistance from history; consequently regarding times before

writing was invented, and therefore before written history had

commenced" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.

"Nor," says Sir J. Lubbock (p. 335), "will tradition supply the

place of history. At best it is untrustworthy and shortlived. Thus

in 1770 the New Zealanders had no recollection of Tasman's visit.

Yet this took place in 1643, less than one hundred and thirty

years before, and must have been to them an event of the greatest

possible importance and interest.... I do not mean to say that

tradition would never preserve for a long period the memory of any

remarkable event. The above-mentioned facts (De Soto's expedition

is also referred to) prove only that it will not always do so; but

it is unnecessary for us to discuss this question, as there is in

Europe no tradition of the Stone Age, and when arrow-heads are

found the ignorant peasantry refer them to the elves or fairies;

stone axes are regarded as thunderbolts, and are used not only in

Europe but also in various other parts of the world for magical

purposes" (p. 336).

_"Relieved" then_ "from _the embarrassing interference of

tradition_, the archæologist can only follow the methods which have

been so successfully pursued in geology" (p. 336).[246]

This is partly a limitation of the question to oral tradition, and

partly an anticipated denial of what I shall now venture to assert,

namely, that we can only look for the savages' traditions of things

known to them before they were savages, religious impressions which

have not been effaced from their minds, legends connected with

their race, facts which have determined their destiny. The very

characteristic of the savage is that he lives only for the present;

that he has little memory for the past, and no forecast for the future;

that his mind is stricken with a hopeless sterility and fixedness, so

that he only seems to remember things that are bred in the bone, and

the tradition of which he cannot divest himself.[247]

[246] "It must not be forgot to the honour of the Babylonians that

they are acknowledged, by all antiquity, to have been the

first who made use of writing in their public and judicial

acts, but at what period it is not known."--Goguet, "Origin of

Laws," i. 45.

Diodorus, however, says of the Egyptians (_vide_ p. 48),

"_Menes_ without doubt has been esteemed the first legislator

of Egypt, _because_ he was the first who put his _laws

in writing_. For before him Vulcan, Helius, and Osiris

(_vide ante_, p. 189) had given laws to

Egypt."--Diod. l. 1, 17-18.

But also it must be recollected that the copper mines of Egypt

were worked from the earliest period.

[247] But there are savages and savages; or rather there are savages

who are strictly such, and savages who have still the germ of

life and who are more properly distinguished as barbarians.

_Vide ante_, p. 285, De Maistre's definition of the

barbarian.

And so the ignorant peasantry when these flints were first dug up,

although they had "no tradition," rushed instinctively upon these

hatchets and considered them magical, apparently on no better grounds

than that they had belonged to a former race of men whom they

associated with elves and fairies. Was not this their way of saying

with Cicero, "Antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos."[248]

[248] I find curious testimony to the belief in M. Maupertius'

(Pinkerton, i. 252-4) account of an expedition of thirty

leagues which he was induced to make into the interior of

Lapland, by the accounts which he had received of a monument

which the Laplanders "looked upon as the wonder of their

country, and in which they conceived was _contained the

knowledge of everything_ of which they were ignorant." In

the end a monument was found bearing on it the appearance of

great antiquity, and an inscription which M. Celsius, his

companion ("very well acquainted with the Runic"), could

not read. M. Maupertius indeed says, "If the tradition of

the country be consulted, all the Laplanders assure us that

they are characters of great antiquity, containing valuable

secrets; but what can one believe in regard to antiquity from

those people who do not even know their own age, and who

for the greater part are ignorant who were their mothers."

Without supposing that the mysterious stone actually concealed

any valuable and recondite knowledge, I am still struck

by this attestation to the belief that antiquity shrouded

such secrets; and if, which does not altogether accord with

other accounts, the Lapps are as ignorant as they are here

represented, then it would seem to be true that when mankind

lose the knowledge of everything else, they still retain

the tradition of their loss and the knowledge of their

degradation. Concerning the superstitious veneration for stone

arrow-heads very generally diffused, _vide_ Mr E. T. Stevens'

"Flint Chips" (Salisbury, 1870, p. 89.)

And so far from tradition supplying us with no clue to solve the

problem of the stone age, does it not in this way suggest a very

decided though an antagonistic view to that of Sir John Lubbock.

The superstitious regard of the peasantry for these newly found

relics--which I presume came under Sir John's own observation when

exploring the northern coast-finds--is really very curious, because it

shows that their ideas and feelings in these matters were, after the

lapse of at any rate a thousand years, identical with those of their

ancestors. In evidence of which I adduce the following passage from

Professor Nillson, having reference to the legend of the "guse arrows"

or "Orvar Odd's saga":--

"This ancient romance shows very clearly that at the time when

it was composed, neither arrows, nor other weapons of stone were

in common use as weapons, but _that even then_ the opinion was

_generally current_ that these stone weapons, which owed their

existence to the dwarf race skilled in sorcery, were endowed with a

magic power against witches and witchcraft which no other weapons

possessed."--Professor Nillson, "Stone Age," p. 199.

But this suggests the further reflection, whether this stone age among

certain tribes was not as much in rejection as in ignorance of metals.

Professor Nillson (p. 97, 98) shows that flint was used for _sacred_

sacrificial purposes by the Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Latins,

long after they were acquainted with weapons of metal. Among these

the traditional idea about flint, whatever it was, was kept in due

subordination; but among tribes that had sunk into savagery it is

conceivable that it may have become a superstition, and dominated.

I am not sure that we do not underrate the capacity for tradition among

savages where it has once taken hold; still, if it had been a question

of mere savages, at the first glance I should have been disposed to

agree with Sir John Lubbock. But let us take the case of Tasman, which

Sir John puts forward as a sort of crucial case, and which may be

accepted as such, seeing that the New Zealanders may fairly claim to be

regarded as "barbarians."[249]

[249] _Vide_ Sir George Grey's "Polynesian Mythology," p. xiii.;

F. A. Weld's (Governor of Western Australia) "Notes on New

Zealand," pp. 15, 60.

In the first place, I find the following in a note to "Cook's Voyages"

(Smith, 1846):--"Mr Polack, in his 'Narrative of Travels and Adventures

during a residence in New Zealand between the years 1831-37,' collected

all the particulars relating to Cook's brush with the natives, 1769, on

the spot."

Next, let us see what Cook says on the subject of Tasman ("Cook's

Voyages," i. 164)--

"But the Indians still continued _near the ship_, rowing round many

times [hardly the most favourable conditions under which to recover

a tradition], conversing with Tupia [the Otaheitan interpreter]

chiefly concerning the traditions they had among them with respect

to the antiquities of their country. To this subject they were led

by the inquiries which Tupia had been directed to make, whether

they had ever seen such a vessel as ours, or had ever heard that

any such had been on their coast. These inquiries were all answered

in the negative, _so that_ tradition has preserved among them no

memorial of Tasman, though by an observation made this day we find

we are _only fifteen_ miles south of Murderers' Bay!"

Evidently the shrewd and gallant investigator himself was not satisfied

with the cross-examination, for we find at p. 170--

"When we were under sail one old man, Topaa [a native], came on

board to take leave of us; and as we were still desirous of making

further inquiries whether any memory of Tasman had been preserved

among their people, Tupia was directed to ask him whether he had

ever heard that such a vessel as ours had before visited the

country. To this he replied in the negative; but said that _his

ancestors had told him_ there had once come to this place a _small_

vessel from a distant country called Ulimaroa, in which were _four_

men, who upon coming on shore were _all killed_. Upon being asked

where this distant land lay he pointed to the northward."

But what does Tasman himself say?--

"On the 17th December these savages began to grow a little bolder

and more familiar, insomuch that at last they ventured on board

the _Heemskirk_, in order to trade with those in the vessel. As

soon as I perceived it, being apprehensive that they might attempt

to surprise that ship, _I sent my shallop_, with seven men, to

put the people in the _Heemskirk_ on their guard, and to direct

them not to place any confidence in these people. My seven men,

being _without arms_, were attacked by these savages, who _killed

three_ of the seven, and _forced_ the other _four_ to swim for

their lives; _which_ occasioned my giving that place the name of

the Bay of Murderers.[250] Our ship's company _would undoubtedly_

have taken a severe revenge if the rough weather had not prevented

them."--_Tasman's Voyage of Discovery, Pinkerton_, xi.

[250] This was a recognition on Tasman's part that there was a

violation of the law of nations, which he evidently considered

ought to have been recognised by these people. For killing

unarmed men he does not stigmatise them as savages, but

as murderers, which name has clung to the spot and to the

transaction to this day.

Now, I submit that this old man Topaa's recollection of the tradition

of an event which occurred one hundred and thirty years before his

time, was much more perfect than Captain Cook's, Sir Joseph Banks', Dr

Solander's, and Sir J. Lubbock's recollection of the same event from

geographical records.

Emboldened by this instance of the fallibility of scientific men, I

now proceed to question the truth of the two following propositions of

Sir J. Lubbock, after which I shall ask to be allowed to enunciate a

proposition of my own.

First, Sir J. Lubbock says: "It has been asserted over and over again

that there is no race of man so degraded as to be entirely without a

religion--without some idea of the Deity. So far from this being true,

the very reverse is the case" (p. 467).[251]

[251] I am aware that what I have opposed to Sir J. Lubbock is only

the contrary and not the contradictory of his proposition.

I find, however, that a very competent authority, Wilson,

"Archæology and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland," p. 42, says:

"No people, however rude or debased be their state, have yet

been met with so degraded to the level of the brutes as to

entertain no notion of a Supreme Being, or no anticipation

of a future state." "All polytheism is based on monotheism;

idolatry implies religious feeling."--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iv.

69. But in truth it was not a priest or a missionary who

first enunciated the contradictory of Sir John Lubbock's

proposition--it was Cicero. "Itaque ex tot generibus nullum

est animal, præter hominem, quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei:

ipsisque in hominibus nulla gens est, neque _tam immansueta_,

neque _tam fera_, quæ non _etiam si ignoret qualem habere deum

deceat_, tamen _habendum sciat_." De Legibus; i. 8.

Second, "It is a common opinion that savages are, as a general rule,

only the miserable remnants of nations once more civilised; but

although there are some well-established cases of national decay, there

is no scientific evidence which would justify us in asserting that this

is generally the case" (p. 337).

In opposition to the first proposition, I maintain that there is no

race of men so degraded as to be without some vestige of religion.

And in opposition to the second, I assert that if they have a vestige

of religion, and nothing else, they have still that which will convict

them of degeneracy.

First, To say that a savage has no idea of the Deity, is to say merely

that he is a savage; and it appears to me that this extinction of all

knowledge of the Deity among a people, precisely marks the point where

the barbarian lapses into the savage.

Taking the range of the authorities quoted by Sir J. Lubbock,[252]

I find a great concurrence of testimony to the fact that there is

some vestige of religion. One only--whose authority on any other

point incidental to African travel I should regard as of the highest

value--Captain Richard Burton, asserts without qualification, and in

language sufficiently explicit, that "some of the tribes of the lake

district of Central Africa admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil."

Others assert the same negatively--they did not come upon any signs of

religion, any external observances, any trace of ceremonial worship.

For instance, it is said that the Tasmanians had no word for a Creator

(p. 468, Lubbock), which need not excite surprise, as it is also said

of them that they were incapable of forming any abstract ideas at all

(p. 355, Lubbock). Again, in many of those cases where it is more or

less roundly asserted that there is no vestige of religion, we find it

plainly intimated that there is a belief in the devil, _e.g._ Lubbock,

p. 469.

[252] I should not have considered it necessary to have entered so

elaborately into this argument, if I had previously read the

chapter on Animism in Mr Tylor's "Primitive Culture." The

instances, however, which follow will stand as supplementary.

"The Tonpinambas of Brazil had _no religion_, though if the name is

applied 'à des notions fantastiques d'êtres surnaturals et puissans

on ne sauroit nier qu'ils n'eussent une croyance religieuse et

_même une sorte_ de culte exterieur.'"--_Freycinet_, i. 153.

Now, although the devil may, and in many instances no doubt has,[253]

made a special revelation of himself to his votaries, the ordinary

channel of information concerning him is through tradition, and through

the tradition of the fall of man.

[253] Sir J. Lubbock says (p. 370) of the Feegee islanders: "They

did not worship idols, but many of the priests seem to have

really thought that they had been in actual communication with

the Atona; and some of the early missionaries were inclined

to believe that Satan may have been permitted to practise a

deception upon them, in order to strengthen his power. However

extraordinary this may appear, the same was the case in

Tahiti."

But I ask further of those who dispute this, If savages are found with

this fear of the supernatural world, after they have lost the idea of

God, how do they get it? If not from tradition, then from reflection?

But savages do not reason (Lubbock, p. 465). Moreover, at p. 470, Sir

J. Lubbock says, what really brings us very nearly to agreement, "How,

for instance, can a people who are unable to count their own fingers,

possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of

a religion?" This is said with reference to a previous allegation,

"That those who assert that even the lowest savages believe in a

Deity, affirm that which is entirely contrary to the evidence" (p.

470). But there is a great concurrence of evidence that "even the

lowest savages" believe in the devil. Belief in the devil involves a

realisation more or less obscure of the fallen angel, of the Spirit

of Evil--and this for the savage who "cannot count his fingers" is

as great an intellectual effort as would be, merely considered as an

intellectual effort, a belief in the Deity. On any theory of growth or

development how could he ("the lowest savage") have got the idea?

Several writers who are quoted, whilst they deny the existence of any

notion of religion among a particular people, mention facts which are

incompatible with that statement. I may also say, parenthetically, that

to detect or elicit the sentiment of religion in others, one must have

something of the sentiment in ourselves; _e.g._ there is the instance

of Kolben (Lubbock, p. 469), "who, _in spite_ of the assertions of the

natives themselves, _felt quite sure_ that certain dances _must be_ of

a religious character, let the Hottentots say what they will." Now I

must say there is great _à priori_ probability in the truth of Kolben's

conviction, although he was probably led to it merely by the insight of

his own mind. Let it be taken in connection with the following evidence

in Washington Irving's "Life of Columbus," iii. 122-124:--

"The _dances_ to which the natives seemed so immoderately addicted,

and which had been _at first_ considered by the Spaniards mere

idle pastimes, were _found_ to be often _ceremonials of a serious

and mystic character_." Again--"Peter Martyn observes that they

performed these dances to the chant of certain metres and ballads

_handed down from_ generation to generation, in which were

rehearsed the deeds of their ancestors. Some of these ballads were

of a _sacred_ character, containing their _traditional_ notions of

theology, and the superstitions and fables which comprised their

religious creeds."

Pritchard, "Researches into Phys. Hist. of Man" (i. p. 205), quoting

Oldendorp, and speaking of the African negroes, says:--"At the annual

harvest feast, which _nearly all_ the nations of Guinea solemnise,

thank-offerings are brought to the Deity. These festivals are days of

rejoicing, which the negroes pass with feasting and dancing." _Vide_

also "Hist. of Indian Tribes of North America, 120 portraits from the

Ind. Gal. in Depart. of War at Washington, by T. M'Kenney (late Ind.

Dep. Wash.) and J. Hall of Cincinnati" (Philadelphia, 1837).

"Dancing is among the most prominent of the aboriginal

_ceremonies_; there is no tribe in which it is not practised. The

Indians have their _war_ dance and their _peace_ dance, their dance

of _mourning for the dead_, their _begging_ dance, their pipe

dance, their green-corn dance, and their Wabana (an offering to

the devil). Each of these is distinguished by some peculiarity ...

though to a stranger they appear much alike, except the last....

It is a ceremony and not a recreation, and is conducted with a

seriousness belonging to an important public duty."

At p. 437 (Lubbock) it is said, "Admiral Fitzroy never witnessed

or heard of any act of a decidedly religious character among the

Fuegians." Still, as Sir John admits, "some of the natives suppose

that there is a great black man in the woods who knows everything, and

cannot be escaped." If this is not the devil, it looks very like him.

Again, p. 469, Mr Mathews says, speaking of the Fuegians, "he sometimes

heard a great howling or lamentation about _sunrise_ in the morning;

and upon asking Jemmy Button what occasioned the outcry, he could

obtain no satisfactory answer; the boy only saying, 'people very sad,

cry very much.'" Upon which Sir John remarks, "This appears so natural

and sufficient an explanation, that why the outcry should be 'supposed

to be devotional' I must confess myself unable to see" (469).

Now, if this was not their traditional notion and mode of prayer,

degraded according to the measure of their degeneracy, the degeneracy

is at least proved in another way, for, being still reasonable beings,

they had, according to the account, congregated together to send up

a lamentation, which, if it was not prayer, could be likened only to

the moonlight howling of wolves. This mode of prayer resembles what

Father Loyer and the missionary Oldendorp (Pritchard, i. 197) tells

us of the negroes. Father Loyer "declares that they have a belief in

a universally powerful Being, and to him they address prayers. Every

morning after _they rise_ they go to the river side to wash, and

throwing a handful of water on their head, or pouring sand with it

to express their humility, they join their hands and then open them,

whisper softly the word 'exsuvais.'" Oldendorp says (p. 202): "The

negroes profess their dependence on the Deity, ... they pray _at the

rising_ and setting of the sun,[254] on eating and drinking, and when

they go to war." Compare also Helps' "Spanish Conquest in America," i.

285:--

"The worship of the Peruvians was not the mere worship of the

sun alone as of the most beautiful and powerful thing which they

beheld; but they had _also_ a worship of a far more elevated and

refined nature, addressed to Pachacamac, the soul of the universe,

_whom_ they hardly dared to name; and when they were obliged to

name this Being, they did so inclining the head and the whole body,

now _lifting_ up the eyes to heaven, now lowering them to the

ground, and _giving kisses in the air_. To Pachacamac they made

no temple and offered no sacrifices, but they adored him in their

hearts."[255]

[254] After all, is there not something in their mode of prayer

which recalls the language of Psalm cxl., "Dirigatur oratio

mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: _elevatio manuum mearum

sacrificium vespertinum_."

If the reader will refer to Bunsen's "Egypt," &c. vol. i.

p. 497, he will find "a man with uplifted arms" as the

ideographic sign (19) for "to praise, glorification," which

is in evidence not only that it was the natural but the

traditional mode.

[255] Garcilasso de la Vega's authority is so unimpeachable, and at

the same time his testimony is so unmistakable on this point,

that it will be as well to give his own words, as he was well

acquainted with the Peruvian traditions, through his mother,

who was one of the Yncas. He adds: "When the Indians were

asked who Pachacamac was, they replied that he it was who gave

life to the universe, and supported it; but that they knew him

not, for they had never _seen_ him, and that for this reason

they did not build temples to him, nor offer him sacrifices;

but that they worshipped him in their hearts (mentally),

and considered him to be an _unknown God_.... From this it

is clear, that these Indians considered him to be the maker

of all things." Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega's "Royal

Commentaries of the Yncas," ed. C. Markham, 1869, i. 107. He

further remarks that, whereas they hesitated to pronounce the

name of Pachacamac, "they spoke of the sun on every occasion."

Compare the accounts we have of the Guanches. M. Pegot Ogier,

"The Fortunate Isles" (Canaries), 1871, says (p. 283), that

a comparison of the Chronicles of the Conquest shows that,

"far from being idolaters, the Guanches worshipped one God,

the Creator and Preserver of the world," and that (p. 282),

"in their worship, they _raised their hands_ to heaven, and

sacrificed on the mountains by pouring milk on the ground

from a _height_; their milk was carried in a sacred vase

called _ganigo_." The name of their god, "Achoron Achaman"

= "He who upholds the heaven and earth," and "Achuhuyahan

Achuhucanac" = "He who sustains every one," has resemblances

with "Pachacamac" = "Pacha," the earth; and "camac" participle

of "camani," "I create."--(C. Markham, Hakluyt ed. of Garcil.

de la Vega, i. 101.)

At p. 468 Sir John somewhat too roundly asserts that "Dr Hooker tells

us that the Lepchas of Northern India have _no religion_."

Turning to Dr Hooker's "Himalayan Journal," I find (i. 135), "The

Lepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of

good and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_

introduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with

the natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_,

faith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the

doctrine of metempsychosis" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p.

224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed

there is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive

monotheism.

So, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, "Once more Dr Hooker states that

the Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the

contrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs

is the principal part of their religious practice."

It is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), "The Khasias are

superstitious, but have no religion;" he adds, however, "_like the

Lepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the

grove, cave, and stream." It seems, however, that the only outward

manifestation of their religion is in "breaking hens' eggs"! What

can be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of

primitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians,"

second series) how primitive truth was concealed under material

symbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, "Even upon the hypothesis that

these fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the

hieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince

us of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph,

whom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the

natural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity." Again,

p. 115, "In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation

was proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the

poets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things."

"_The egg_," says Plutarch, "is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of

Bacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and

comprehends all things in himself." There is a passage in Athenagoras

to the same effect.

[256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.

Superstitions were also connected with cocks and hens in Khasia.

Whether these again were connected with the symbolical representation

of the egg can only be conjectured. It may possibly be that the

representation had a common origin with the cock of Apollo and the

cock of Æsculapius, if, indeed, these were not also originally derived

from the same primal conception. This would be only to renew the old

classical dispute as to whether the hen proceeded from the egg, or the

egg from the hen, which I take to be only the form in which the great

question of the First Cause was debated by the Gentile world after

their ideas of a Creator had become indistinct, and with reference to

this ancient symbol. However that may be, I wish to point out that

this ceremonial use of the cock may be traced in Europe, Asia, and

Africa: _e.g. Asia_--"The Lepchas scatter eggs and pebbles over the

graves of their friends.... Among the Limboos, the priests of a higher

order than the Lepcha, Bijoras officiate at marriages, when a _cock_

is put into the bride-groom's hands, and a _hen_ into those of the

bride. The Phedangbo then cuts off the birds' heads, when the blood

is caught in a plantain leaf, and runs into pools, from which omens

are drawn" (Dr Hooker, "Himalayan Journal," i. 238). _Africa_--_vide_

Pritchard, "Phys. Hist. of Man," i. 203, 204, 208: "Even the dead are

not buried without sacrifices. A white hen is slain by the priest

before the corpse comes to the grave, and the bier whereon the body

lies is sprinkled with its blood. This custom was introduced by the

nation of Kagraut." _Europe_--If any one will turn to the _Illustrated

London News_ of Nov. 14, 1868, he will find an account and illustration

of a local ceremony peculiar to the village of Gorbio in the Maritime

Alps, in which the priest, on a particular day in the year, is solemnly

presented with four cocks hung upon a halberd--together with an apple

by the bachelors and spinsters of the village--from which it would seem

to have had originally some connection, as we have seen above, with a

marriage ceremony. Wilson ("Archæologia") remarks that the custom of

"Easter, or, in the north, Paste eggs (Pasch), was very prevalent in

the north."[257]

[257] Compare the following passage in the Bishop of Chalons' "Le

Monde et l'Homme Primitif" (with reference to Gen. i.--the

Creation). At p. 11 the Bishop says, "That when the Book

of the Law of Manou and the Mahabarata relate that God,

who contains within Himself his own principle in the first

instance, the water, and gave it fecundity, and that the

produce of this fecundity became _an egg_, ... can we see in

this anything else than the fantastic translation of this

phrase of Scripture, 'L'esprit de Dieu _couvait_ la surface

des eaux--Rouha Elohim meharephet hal pene hammaïm.'" _Vide_

also p. 11 (as to universality of tradition) and p. 34 as to

text also. J. G. Vance ("Archæol." xix.) says, upon the

mundane egg "the whole system of ancient religion was based"

(J. B. Waring, "Stone Monuments of Remote Ages," p. 5, 1870).

It strikes me that it would be difficult to assign a Christian

origin for the custom. It must then have been a custom which the

Church diverted or sanctioned in giving it an innocent or Christian

application; in which case, in so far as it is pagan, it may possibly

be traced to a common origin with the practices in Khasia among the

Lepchas.

It would extend the inquiry too far to follow Sir J. Lubbock through

all the cases adduced by him. I will conclude, therefore, with his

account of the Andaman islander--who, with the Australians, Esquimaux,

and Fuegians, dispute the point of being considered the lowest of

mankind. It is said of the Andamans, "that they have no idea of

a Supreme Being, no religion, or any belief in a future state of

existence" (p. 346). It is, however, casually mentioned that, "after

death, the corpse is buried in a sitting posture." Now this mode of

burial is common to them with Esquimaux (p. 409), the Australians (p.

353), the Maories (p. 369), and the natives of the Feegee Islands

(p. 361), among whom we seem to get a clue to this strange mode of

burial; "the fact is, _they_ (the Feegee islanders) not only believe

in a future state, but are persuaded that as they leave this life, so

will they rise again." Sir J. Lubbock, in his "Introduction to Prof.

Nillson" (xxxiii.), says that this was the common mode of burial in

the Stone Age; and Prescott ("Hist. of Mexico," ii. 485) says, "Who

can doubt the existence of an affinity, or at least an intercourse,

between tribes, who had _the same strange habit of burying the dead in

a sitting position_, as was practised to some extent by most if _not

all_ of the aborigines from Canada to Patagonia?"[258] But not only may

it be presumed that they had an affinity and intercourse, but a common

religious idea. It may be doubted then whether even the naked Andaman

is so entirely destitute of all religious impressions as he is supposed

to be.

[258] I find, in _Archæological Journal_, No. 89, 1866, p. 27,

that corpses in a sitting posture were found under the long

cromlechs in South Jutland.

I have already urged that if any vestiges of religion remain they must

be considered as evidence of tradition and proof of degeneracy. I think

the following reflection will tend to clench this argument.

Although it is obscure and disputed to what extent certain savages

do retain glimmerings of religion, it is certain and admitted that

some savages have religion and a religious ceremonial. Now, as Sir J.

Lubbock says, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count

upon their fingers possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even

the rudiments of religion." It is clear, then, that the lowest grade

of mankind did not invent it, how then did the higher grade get it,

"assuming always the unity of the human race"?

Finally, if man commenced with the knowledge of the devil, how did

they proceed on to the idea of God? "The first idea of a God is almost

always as an evil spirit" (Lubbock, p. 468). How then did they advance

to the knowledge of the God of purity and love, or even of "the Great

Spirit" of the Indians?[259]

[259] _Vide_ Dr Newman's "Grammar of Assent," p. 386, _et seq._

Let us at least know whether it is supposed that this was the order

of knowledge ordained by Divine Providence, or whether it is believed

that man in this manner developed the idea of God out of his own

consciousness, his primitive, or perhaps innate, idea being, the

conception of evil and of the evil spirit.[260] Sir John says (p.

487), "There are no just grounds for expecting man to be ever endued

with a sixth sense." But why not? If by his own mental vigour he can

out of the primitive idea of evil generate the idea of good--what may

we not expect?

[260] _Per contra_, I invite Sir J. Lubbock's attention to the

following passage from Mr Gladstone's "Homer" (ii. 44), "As

_the derivative idea_ of sin depended upon that of _goodness_,

and as the shadow ceases to be visible when the object

shadowed has become more dim, we might well expect that the

contraction and obscuration of the true idea of goodness

would bring about a more than proportionate loss of knowledge

concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation of evil

could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner as the

opposite of the impersonation of good; and when the moral

standard of Godhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find

to be the case even in the works of Homer, the negation of

that standard could not but cease to be either interesting

or intelligible. Accordingly we find that the _process of

disintegration_, followed by that of arbitrary reassortment

and combination of elements, had proceeded to a more advanced

stage _with respect to the tradition of the evil one_ than in

the other cases."

Yet, if any one will compare the evidence which Sir John has collected,

he will come, I think, to the conclusion, that the invention and

adaptability of the savage is very slight indeed. He will find (p.

350) that the inhabitants of Botany Bay had fish-hooks, but no nets;

those of Western Australia, nets but not hooks; that those who had the

throwing-stick and boomerang, were ignorant both of slings and bows

and arrows; that those who had retained the knowledge of the bow did

not pass on to the use of the bola; that the northern tribes visited by

Kane were skilful in the capture of birds with nets, yet were entirely

ignorant of fishing (452); that the nearest approach to the South

American bola is among the Esquimaux (450); that the throwing-stick is

common only to the widely distant Esquimaux, Australians, and some of

the Brazilian tribes (_id._); that the "sumpitan" or blowpipe of the

Malays occurs only in the valley of the Amazons. Does not this point

to a traditional knowledge of these things? Nevertheless, this mass of

evidence seems to have produced the very opposite conviction with Sir

J. Lubbock.

"On the whole, then, from a review of all these and other similar

facts which _might have been_ mentioned, it seems to me most probable

that many of the simpler weapons, implements, &c., have been invented

independently by various savage tribes, although there are no doubt

also cases in which they have been borrowed by one tribe from another"

(p. 451). Instances in which they have been borrowed from each other

are not infrequent, but then neither are they inconsistent with the

theory of tradition; but the instances of invention _are limited to

one_. (See for instance p. 394.) At p. 394 we find--"Although they (the

Esquimaux) had no knowledge of pottery, Captain Cook saw at Unalashka

vessels "of flat stone, with sides of clay, not unlike a standing pye."

We here obtain an idea of the manner in which the knowledge of pottery

_may have been_ developed. After using clay to raise the sides of

their stone vessels, it _would_ naturally occur to them, that the same

substance would serve for the bottom also, and thus the use of stone

_might be_ replaced by a more convenient material."

Recollecting how roast pig came to be discovered, it cannot be said

to be impossible that pottery may thus have been invented; but in

this instance it might equally have been the rough substitute for the

pottery of their recollection. Besides, the proof is wanting that they

ever did pass on to the invention of pottery. It may, for anything we

know to the contrary, be in this inchoate state amongst them still.

Now, until further evidence is forthcoming, I shall take the liberty of

maintaining that savages seem to show no inventive faculty or power of

recovery in themselves.[261] Whatever they possess seems to be limited

to what they have retained of primitive civilisation, and what they

have retained of civilisation seems exactly in proportion to what they

have retained of primitive religion.

[261] Sir J. Lubbock ("Pre-historic Times," p. 337) says, "The

largest erection in Tahiti was constructed by the generation

living at the time of Captain Cook's visit, and the practice

of cannibalism had been recently abandoned." For these

statements he refers to Forster, "Observations made during

a Voyage round the World," p. 327, a work I have not at

hand, and also Ellis, "Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 29. I

have made the reference to the latter, but I do not find a

syllable about cannibalism; and as to the other point Ellis

says, "In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses

in the mountains ... stone pavements of their dwellings and

courtyards, foundations of houses and ruins of family temples,

_are numerous_.... _All these relics_ are of the _same kind_

as those observed among the nations at the time of _their

discovery_, evidently proving that they belong to the same

race, though to a more populous era of their history." I

draw attention to this inadvertence, as the above instances

(two) are the most important of the four which Sir J. Lubbock

adduces in support of his view. _Vide_ Appendix.

In supporting this proposition I shall hardly have occasion to go

beyond the four corners of Sir J. Lubbock's "Pre-historic Times."

It is indeed a moot point with the travellers and ethnologists who have

given their attention to the subject, which race of savages is "the

lowest in the scale of civilisation." In this competitive examination

a concurrence of opinion seems to decide in favour of the Fuegian, who

at any rate is miserable enough, living, when better food fails him, on

raw and putrid flesh, eked out with cannibalism; and whose clothing (in

Central Fuego) consists "in a scrap of otter skin, about as large as a

pocket handkerchief, laced across the breast with strings, and shifted

according to the wind" (Darwin, _apud_ Lubbock). Their religion, as we

have just seen, consists in a vague apprehension of the black man who

lives up in the woods--and their prayer is something slightly elevated

above the howl of the wolf. Their civilisation, therefore, like their

religion, may be considered to be at a "minimum." The Australians

have been called "the miserablest people in the world" (p. 445). They

are said to have "no religion or any kind of prayer, but most of them

believe in evil spirits, and all have a dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).

Here again we see their civilisation degraded _pari-passu_ with their

religious belief--so, too, with the Andaman (_vide supra_) and the

Tasmanian (p. 355).

When, however, we come to the inhabitants of the Feegee Islands,

not greatly different from the people surrounding them, their

characteristics, manners, and customs being partly Nigrito and partly

Polynesian, although in the matter of cannibalism they are simply

horrible, and eat their kind, not on any high notion that they are

appropriating the spirit and glory of him whom they devour (_vide_

Lubbock, 371), but from a repulsive preference; yet they have a

distinct notion of religion, with temples, and ceremonies, and we are

told they look down upon the Samoans because they had no religion.

Well, we find the Feegeeans in a state of material civilisation exactly

corresponding--they live in well built houses, 20 to 30 feet long and

15 feet high, in fortified towns, with earthen ramparts, surmounted by

a reed fence, &c. "Their temples were pyramidal in form, and were often

erected on terraced mounds like those of Central America" (p. 357).

They had efficient weapons, agricultural implements, well-constructed

canoes, and (p. 372) pottery.[262]

[262] The Duke of Argyll, balancing the conclusions of Archbishop

Whately and Sir J. Lubbock ("Primeval Man," p. 139), says,

"Whately defies the supporter of Development to produce a

single case of savages having raised themselves. Sir J.

Lubbock replies by defying his opponent to show that it has

not been done and done often. He urges, and urges as it seems

to me with truth, that the great difficulty of teaching many

savages the arts of civilised life, is no proof whatever

that the various degrees of advance towards the knowledge

of those arts which are actually found among semi-barbarous

nations may not have been of strictly indigenous growth. _Thus

it appears that one tribe of red Indians called Mandans_

practised the art of _fortifying_ their towns. _Surrounding

tribes_, although they saw the advantage derived from this

art, yet _never practised_ it, and _never learned it_." So

far as to the fact. The Duke of Argyll continues the argument

on the side of Sir J. Lubbock. But what I wish to indicate is

that this crucial instance of the Mandans may be triumphantly

adduced in support of my proposition. Why, these are the _very

Mandans_ among whom Catlin and the Prince Maxmilian of Neuwied

discovered the curious commemorative ceremony of the Deluge!

_Vide_ ch. xi.

When, however, we come to the Tahitians we find a very high state

of civilisation. Of their religion it is said--"That though they

worshipped numerous deities," and sometimes sacrificed to them, "yet

they were not idolators." "Captain Cook found their religion, like

that of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with

apparent inconsistencies." They had a priesthood (p. 387). "They

believed in the immortality of the soul, and in two situations of

different degrees of happiness somewhat analogous to our heaven and

hell, though not regarded as places of reward and punishment; but the

one intended 'for the chief and superior classes,' 'the other for

the people of inferior rank.'" This is substantially Captain Cook's

account of the Tahitians, and allowing it to be exact, although

I have a suspicion that a missionary would have put it somewhat

differently,[263] it shows a comparative state of religion very much

elevated above anything we have yet seen. They had besides curious

customs, such as that of eating apart. "They ate alone," they said,

"because it was right, but why it was right they were unable to

explain"--a custom which is common to them with the Bachapins (p.

384), (who, _by the way_, are also among the races classified as "of

no religion"). Although the inhabitants of Tahiti present to us a much

higher standard of religion and morality than we have yet met with,

_also_ "they, on the whole, may be taken as representing _the highest

stage_ in civilisation to which man has in any country raised himself,

before the discovery or introduction of metallic implements" (Lubbock,

p. 372).

[263] Since writing the above, I have referred to Wallis and

Bougainville. Wallis could not discover "that these people

had any kind of religious worship among them." Bougainville

says "that their principal deity is called 'Ein-t-era,'

_i.e._ 'king of _light_' or 'of the sun'; besides whom they

acknowledge a number of inferior divinities, some of whom

produce evil and others good; that the general name for these

_ministering_ spirits is Eatona; and that the natives suppose

_two_ of these divinities attend _each affair of consequence

in human life_, determining its fate either advantageously or

otherwise. To one circumstance our author speaks in decisive

terms. He says, when the moon exhibits a certain aspect which

bears the name of 'Malama Tamai' (the moon is in a state of

war), the natives offer up human sacrifices.... When any one

sneezes, his companions cry out 'Eva-rona-t-eatona,' _i.e._

'May the good genius awaken thee,' or 'May not the evil genius

lull thee asleep.'"

Captain King ("Journal of Transactions on returning to the

Sandwich Islands," &c., Pinkerton, xi. 737) says of the

Sandwich Islanders, "The religion of these people resembles

in most of its principal features _that of the Society and

Friendly Islands_. Their morais, their whattas, their idols,

their sacrifices, and their sacred songs, _all of which_ they

have in common with each other, are _convincing proofs_ that

their religious notions are derived _from the same source_."

It is impossible within these limits to investigate every case. I

have taken the more salient cases, as instanced by Sir J. Lubbock,

and contrasted them. I now wish to present the contrast in somewhat

livelier form, and I do not see that I can do better than to present

to the reader two scenes precisely similar, as to substance, yet under

different conditions, in different parts of the world. The first shall

be a description of "a whale ashore," by Sir J. Lubbock, among the

Australians; and the second, a description of the same scene by Catlin

("Last Rambles, &c., among the Indians of Vancouver's Island").

I must preface that Sir J. Lubbock says that the Australians "have

no religion nor any idea of prayer, but most of them believe in evil

spirits, and all have great dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).

The following is the scene to which I refer:--

"They are not, so far as I am aware, able to kill whales for

themselves, but when one is washed on shore it is a real godsend

to them. Fires are immediately lit to give notice of the joyful

event.... For days they remain by the carcase, rubbed from head to

foot with the stinking blubber, gorged to repletion with putrid

meat, out of temper from indigestion, and therefore engaged in

constant frays, suffering from a continuous disorder from high

feeding, and altogether a disgusting spectacle."--_Capt. Grey, apud

Lubbock_, p. 347.

This is one picture; now for the other. It may be said that it is

only the different idiosyncrasies of the writers transferred to their

pages--that one is the narrative of _Jean qui pleure_, &c., or of the

_médicin tant pis_, &c.; but I do not think so.

Mr Catlin premises by telling us that the scene occurred when on a

visit with the chief of the Klah-o-gnats, of whom he says that he

knew at first sight by his actions that he was "a chief, and by the

expression of his face that he was a good man," and whom his companion

described as "a very fine old fellow; that man is a gentleman; I'd

trust myself anywhere with that man." Of their religion, the chief

himself told Catlin that on that western coast of Vancouver's Island

"they all believed in a Great Spirit, who created them and all things,

and that they all have times and places when and where they pray to

that Spirit, that he may not be angry with them."

One day came the startling announcement that a whale was ashore.

"The sight was imposing when we came near to it, but not until we

came around it on the shore side had I any idea of the scene I was

to witness. Some hundreds, if not thousands of Indians, of all

ages and sexes, and in all colours, were gathered around it, and

others constantly arriving. Some were lying, others standing and

sitting in groups; some were asleep and others eating and drinking,

and others were singing and dancing." The monster was secured by

twenty or thirty harpoons, to which ropes were attached. "These

were watched, and at every lift of a wave moving the monster nearer

the shore, they were tightened on the harpoons, and at low tide the

carcass is left on dry land, a great distance from the water....

The dissection of this monstrous creature, and its distribution

amongst the thousands who would yet be a day or two in getting

together, the interpreter informed us, would not be commenced until

all the claimants arrived."

Several immense baskets had been brought in which to carry away the

blubber. The possession of these baskets made all the difference in the

scene which followed. To some this will be a sufficient explanation.

How, then, did the others come to know nothing of baskets? Truly

there are people who cannot be made to see the effect of "character

upon clover." I rely, however, upon the broad lines of the contrast.

The absence in this latter scene of the disgusting sights above so

graphically described--their quick use of the harpoons--and the general

order and equity of the distribution. "A whale ashore," Mr Catlin says

("Last Rambles," p. 105), "is surely a gift from heaven for these poor

people, and they receive it and use it as such."

Whilst quoting from Catlin, I must be allowed to refer my readers to

the very striking proof (p. 248) he incidentally affords of the theory

of degeneracy in his comparative illustration of the heads of the alto

and bas Peruvian, and of the Crow and modern Flathead:--

"The Crow of the Rocky Mountains and the alto-Peruvian of _the

Andes_, being the two great original fountains of American man,

to whom all the tribes point as their origin, and on whom, of

course, all the tribes have looked as the _beau ideals_ of the

Indian race. The Flathead (letter _c_), aiming at the Crow skull

(like the copyists of most fashions), has carried the copy into a

caricature; and the Bas-Peruvian (_d_), aiming at the _elevated

frontal_ of the mountain regions, has squeezed his up with

circular bandages to equally monstrous proportions." Also _vide_

Prescott's "Mexico," ii. 493, 6th ed., 1850. "Anatomists also have

discerned in crania disinterred from the mounds, and in those

of the inhabitants of the high plains of _the Cordilleras_ an

_obvious difference_ from those of the more barbarous tribes. This

is seen especially in the _ampler forehead_, intimating a decided

intellectual superiority.... Such is the conclusion of Dr Warren,

whose excellent collection has afforded him ample means for study

and comparison."

Before quitting this subject I must revive a question which I think Sir

John Lubbock will admit, if he turns to the evidence dispersed in his

pages, is at present involved in some obscurity. It is simply this,

"How did the savage come by the knowledge of fire?" Sir John Lubbock

suggests (p. 473) "that in making flint instruments sparks would be

produced; in polishing them it would not fail to be observed that they

became hot, and in this way it is easy to see how the two methods of

obtaining fire may have originated.... In obtaining fire _two totally

different_ methods are followed; _some_ savages, as for instance the

Fuegians, using percussion, while others, as the South-Sea Islanders,

rub one piece of wood against another.... Opinions are divided

whether we have any trustworthy record of a people without the means

of obtaining fire" (p. 453). To this point I shall recur. I will now

give Sir John's quotation from Mr Dove: "Although fire was well known

to them (the Tasmanians), some tribes at least appear to have been

ignorant whence it was originally obtained, or how, if extinguished,

it could be relighted. In all their wanderings," says Mr Dove, "they

were particularly careful to bear in their hands the materials for

kindling a fire. Their memory supplies them _with no instances_ of a

period in which they were obliged to draw upon their _inventive powers_

for the means of resuscitating an element so essential to their health

and comfort as flame. How it came originally into their possession is

unknown. _Whether_ it may be viewed as the _gift of nature_ or the

product of art and sagacity, they _cannot recollect a period when it

was a desideratum_" ("Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science," i. 250,

_apud_ Lubbock, p. 355).[264]

[264] The "Popul Vul" (pp. 223-227, Paris, 1861, _vide_ Baring

Gould, "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," p. 383)

gives an instance--or embodies a reminiscence--of a people who

had lost the tradition of fire.

"Then arrived the tribes perishing with cold, ... and all the

tribes were gathered, shivering and quaking with cold, when

they came before the leaders of the Iniches.... Great was

their misery. 'Will you not compassionate us,' they asked;

'we ask only a little fire. Were we not all one, and with one

country, when we were first created? Have pity on us.' 'What

will you give us that we should compassionate you,' was the

answer made to them.... It was answered, 'We will inquire

of Tohil'" (their fire-god); and then follows the horrible

condition of human sacrifices to be offered to their fire-god

Tohil, with reference to which Mr B. Gould quotes it. _Vide

supra_, p. 81, tradition among the Sioux Indians, of fire

having been sent to them from heaven after the Deluge.

In Colden's "Five Indian Nations," p. 167, I find an Indian

chief says: "Now before the Christians arrived, the general

council of the Five Nations was held at Onondaga, where

there has from _the Beginning_ a _continual fire_ been kept

burning; it is made of two great logs, _whose fire never

extinguishes_."

Now, if it is a tenable opinion--and at least these are the statements

of Father Gobien, and of Alvaro de Saavedra, and of Commodore Wilkes,

to whose testimony I shall revert, that there are some tribes who are

unacquainted with fire--that there are some who have and some who have

not the art of rekindling fire, then arises the question whether those

who have it not have lost the art, or whether those who now possess

it invented it. If they did not invent it, they must have held it

as a tradition, until, reaching a lower point of degradation still,

they lost it. Mr Dove's testimony to this effect is very strong. What

an emblem that never-extinguished torch of primitive tradition! We

find the same tradition among the American Indians. "The Chippeways

and Natchez tribes are said to have an institution for keeping up a

perpetual fire, certain persons being set aside and devoted to this

occupation" (Lubbock, p. 421). Freycinet certainly declares that Peré

Gobien's statement, that the inhabitants of the Ladrone were totally

unacquainted with fire until Magellan burnt one of their villages,

to be "entirely without foundation." "The language," he says, "of

the inhabitants contains words for fire, burning, charcoal, oven,

grilling, boiling, &c." Again, as against Commodore Wilkes' assertion

as an eye-witness, that he saw no appearance of fire in the island of

Fakaafo, and that the natives were very much alarmed when they saw

sparks struck from flint and steel, we are told that "Hale gives a list

of Faakaafo words in which we find _asi_ for fire" (Lubbock, p. 454).

However, Sir John does not attribute to this argument the same force

that Mr Tylor does, as _asi_ is evidently the same word as the New

Zealand _ahi_, which denotes light and heat as well as fire.[265] If,

then, we have positive evidence that they have not the thing (Wilkes),

and also evidence that they have the word (_vide_ note), does not this

prove that it is a tradition which they have lost? and is there not the

presumption that they have lost it through degeneracy?

[265] I find, in Falkner's "Description of Patagonia," &c., 1774

(Falkner resided near 40° 7' in those parts), "that in the

vocabulary of the Moluches, although the word for 'fire' is

'k'tal,' the word for 'hot' is '_asee_,' 'cold' 'chosea.'"

But Sir J. Lubbock admits "asi" is the same word as "ahi," and

if "ahi" denotes light and heat, _it also_ signifies fire.

Should we not expect, at least ought it to cause surprise,

that the word for "fire," where poverty of language may be

presumed, should stand also for light and heat? In the Andaman

vocabulary (Earl's "Papuans") "ahay" is their word for the

sun--in which the two senses seem to combine. In Shortland's

"Comp. Table of Polynesian Dialects" ("Traditions of the New

Zealanders"), I find _ahi_ means fire, and not light.

---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

|New Zealand.| Raratonga. | Navigator's | Sandwich Islands

| | | (Savaii). | (Hawaii).

+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

_Fire_ = | Ahi.[C] | Ai. | Afi. | Ahi.

---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

[C] And as would appear from Shortland (_id._ pp. 55, 56, "_ao_,"

a seemingly cognate though not identical word with "ahi,"

is the New Zealand word for light. But in Bougainville's

"Vocabulary of Faiti (Otaheite) Island," I find again "eaï,"

_i.e._ their word for _fire_, whereas their word for light,

not darkness, is "Eouramaï" and "Po" = day light), whilst they

have a distinct word for "hot" = "Ivera"--"Era" being the sun.

Compare Sanscrit "aghni" = ignis, fire.--_Vide_ Card. Wiseman,

"Science and Revealed Religion," p. 40, 5th ed.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XII.

Compare the following account of the New Zealanders:--

"Shut out from the rest of the world, without any to set them

a pattern of what was right or to reprove what was wrong,

is it surprising that morally they should have degenerated,

even from the standard of their forefathers? They were not

always addicted to war, neither were they always cannibals;

_the remembrance of the origin_ of these horrid customs is

_still preserved amongst them_. If the progressive development

theory were true, aboriginal races should have progressively

advanced; every successive generation should have added some

improvement to the one which preceded it; but experience

proves the contrary. A remarkable instance of this may be

adduced in the fact, that the New Zealanders have retrograded,

even since the days of Captain Cook; they then possessed large

double canoes, decked, with houses on them similar to those of

Tahiti and Hawaii, in which, traditionally, their ancestors

arrived; it is now more than half a century since the last was

seen. Tradition also states that they had finer garments in

former days and of different kinds; that, like their reputed

ancestors, they made cloth from the bark of trees--the name

is preserved, but the manufacture has ceased. There are

remains also in their language which would lead us to suppose

that, like the inhabitants of Tonga, they once possessed a

kingly form of government, and though they have now no term

to express that high office, still they have words which are

evidently derived from the very one denoting a king in Tonga.

Their traditions, which are preserved, also establish the

same fact, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs is their

language; its fulness, its richness, and close affinity not

only in words but in grammar to the Sanscrit, carries the mind

back to a time when literature could not have been unknown."

From "Te Ika a Maui," or "New Zealand and its Inhabitants,"

by the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S., a Missionary in New

Zealand for more than thirty years, pp. 5, 6.